_Cover_FA.indd 1



03/06/2013 11:48:05 AM


-


2013-2025
Reforming the National Education System:
Analysis and Feedback on the Preliminary Report of Malaysia Education Blueprint, 2013-2025

2013-2025

321-D, Lorong T. A. R. Kanan Satu,
Off Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman,
50300 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
+603-26971971/1972
+603-26971970
info@llgcultural.com
http://www.llgcultural.com

20135

Pencetakan Advanco Sdn. Bhd.
23, Jalan Segambut Selatan,
Segambut, 51200 Kuala Lumpur
Tel: 03-62589211
Fax: 03-62570761

978-967-11616-2-3

**

J
JJ

7
25

29

1.

2.
3. TIMSS
4. PISA
5.
6. SPM
7.
8.

9.

32
32

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

44
45
45
45
45
46
47

34
36
37
39
40
41
42
44

47

49

49

53

1.
2.
3.
4.
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4

55
55
55
56
56
56
56
56
56

1.
2.
3. JNJK

4. Education Ombudsman

57
58
59
59

1.
2.
3.
4.
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4

61
61
62
62
63
63
64
64
65

60

1.
1.1
a)
b)
c)
d) relevance
1.2
a) health education
b) expressive arts
c) social studies

2.
3.
3.1
3.2 LINUS

3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6

1. LINUS
2.
3.
4.
5.
5.1 LINUS 2.0
5.2
5.3
5.4 LP

5
65
65
65
66
67
68
69
70
70
71
71
72
73
73
74
74
74
74
74
75
75
75
77
77
78
78
78
78
78

1. 70%30%
2.
3. practicum
4.
5.
6.
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6

79
79
79
79
80
80
80
80
80
81
81
81
81

82

16
20132025
: <>

1.

2.

1948



3-18

3-11



3-103-13

OECD



5*.44

TIMSS2007
33-91.2.
3.
23
2009
2-3%

2007



1*4"

PISA

PISAPISA

PISAPISA
,



-
3-16 TIMSS2007
PISA2009+
12180%80%
3-17

E-64
3-16



41.-

SPM1119
3-19



-
3-20201036%SPM

20107%

10



-

3-21
5



--

1.2.
3.

3-15

11

Contact
Hypothesis
12
34

MARA

JNJK201120
3-24110,000
202
3



12













13





201181%3-24





1956
3037





+/+,

14

a)
b)
c)


&EVDBUJPO
0NCVETNBO





e-Guru

(full-time specialist couches)



15

a)
b)
c)
d)







16









50

17



a)
b)

c)

d)



-*/64

a)



a)

b)



a)
b)



a)

b)



a) 50

18

b)

c)



-*/64
LINUS2.0LINUS
LINUS(Aptitude Test)



standard content (performance standard)



SPM75%



3-18

19

2-3


-*/64

LINUS 2.0
reliabilityvalidity


a)

b)

c)
d)

e)
f)
25



a)

b)

c)

d)



-1
:1.

20

2.3.
4.
MPM



-

literacy and numeracy

upper secondary



-



QSBDUJDVN-

a)
b)
c)
d)
e)



-

21



-



a) 70%30%

b)

c) general



a)

b) /



a)

b)

22

c)

d)



PAV



a)

b)



a)
b)
c)
d)

23

<>

25

19481
2

1.2.
3.
4.

1.2.3.
2013-2025()
accessibilityqualityequityunityefficiency

26

12

13

27

15%

161
2013-2025
: <
>

31

5
1
2
3
4
5

access to education
quality of education
equity in education
building unity through education
maximising efficiency

1 quality of education
2 equity in education

32

3 maximising efficiency
4 access to education
5 building unity through education



Student performance in national examinations has consistently improved

each year.3-5
EXHIBIT 3-5
Malaysian national examination results (2000-2011)
UPSR

PMR

Papers graded as pass in national

assessments 1
Percent of papers graded

Papers graded as an A in national

assessments
Percent of papers graded

92

35

SPM

90
88
86

30
25

84
82
80

20
15

78
76
74

10
5

72
70
2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 2011

0
2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 2011

1 In UPSR, failing grades are D and E. In PMR, the failing grade is E. In SPM, the failing grade is G9.
Note: Data for SPM 2003 is not available and is interpolated
SOURCE: Examination Syndicate

PISA 2009+74
OECD

33

1.2.3.
4.

EXHIBIT 3-18
Comparison of TIMSS 2007 results with PMR 2008

Advanced / A
Below Minimum / E

Mathematics scores
Percent of students

Science scores
Percent of students

3
17
30

77

80

72

58

18
TIMSS
2007

12
PMR
20081

20
TIMSS
2007

11
PMR
20081

1 The distribution of grades illustrated is for schools that participated in TIMSS 2007
SOURCE: TIMSS 2007; Examination Syndicate

3-18

PISA
3-143-11

34

EXHIBIT 3-11
Knowledge

Comparison of TIMSS 2007 student performance along the

dimensions of knowledge, application and reasoning
Scores in TIMSS Mathematics
TIMSS 2007 score

300

Indonesia

Malaysia

400

Applying
Reasoning

Scores in TIMSS Science

TIMSS 2007 score

500

600

600

500

400
425
426
438

397
398
405

458
473
487

477
478
468

Hong Kong

574
569
557

Singapore

581
593
579

South Korea

596
595
579

532
522
533
543
547
558
554
567
564

Indonesia

Malaysia

Hong Kong

South Korea

Singapore

SOURCE: TIMSS 2007 for 8th Grade



3
3-943-9

TIMSSPISA
3-83-10TIMSS2-3%
30%PISA0.1%OECD
8%

35

EXHIBIT 3-10
Advanced1

Comparison of Malaysias 2007 TIMSS performance against

other countries

77

77

75

75

20

20

22

23

32

48
63
80

79

65

73

57

Singapore

Hong Kong

63

58

61

80

82

52

South
Korea

8
Hong Kong

Singapore

35

Indonesia

25

Indonesia

Thailand

Romania

Malaysia

18

17

Intl
average

34

South
Korea

10

Intl
average

31

Romania

17
40

Thailand

4
40

Below minimum

% of students by performance level in

TIMSS Science

Malaysia

% of students by performance level in

TIMSS Mathematics

Intermediate

1 Advanced benchmark: able to organize information, make generalisations, solve non-routine problems
and draw and justify conclusions from data
Note: Countries arranged by proportion of students in advanced level in descending order
SOURCE: TIMSS 2007 for 8th Grade

3-103-13

OECD
EXHIBIT 3-13
Comparison of Malaysias performance
the OECD average

in PISA 2009+ by skill level against

Percentage of students at different performance levels on PISA 2009+1

1 Reading

Advanced

Intermediate

2 Mathematics

Advanced
Intermediate

56

3 Science

40

74

Below
minimum

OECD
average

Intermediate

59

Malaysia

74

Below
minimum

OECD
average

57

43

22

19
Malaysia

Advanced

65
Below
minimum

44

13

18
Malaysia

OECD
average

1 Advanced includes proficiency level 5 and level 6; Intermediate includes proficiency level 2, 3, and 4; and Below minimum
includes proficiency level 1 and below
Note: Score is an average of sample of schools in Malaysia: 80% National secondary schools, 3% Religious schools, 4%
technical and vocational schools, 3% full boarding schools, 3% MARA Junior Science Colleges, 7% private schools by students
SOURCE: PISA 2009+

36


5*.44

TIMSS19992003
20073-9
31.2.3.

3deemed to be unlikely
1.200398%2007
75%90%2.
3.

2
3
2

2003
2009

2009

Testing possible factors for Malaysias

performance decline in TIMSS
Three factors have been raised as possible reasons for
Malaysias decline in the TIMSS assessment: the degree to
which the content in the national curriculum matches that which
is tested in TIMSS, the shift in language policy, and sampling
methodology. However, all three are deemed to be unlikely to be
a major driver for the following reasons:
Incomplete coverage of the concepts assessed in TIMSS by
the national curriculum is unlikely to account for the decline.
While there has been some drop in the common content
between the Mathematics test questions of TIMSS and the
national curriculum between 2003 and 2007 (from 98% in 2003
to 75% in 2007 based on the Ministrys self-assessment), the
same cannot be said for Science, where overlap remains high at
90%.
Bahasa Malaysia and English language questions were both
provided as options in the TIMSS assessments for Malaysia.
Therefore results should not have been affected by the language
of testing used for TIMSS.
The sampling approach is unlikely to be a major driver.
performance of Malaysias schools based on a distribution of
schools by national performance band.

37

2-3%
3
TIMSS

100400600146
2007



1*4"

PISA3-9
3-14

EXHIBIT 3-14
Comparison of Malaysia
s PISA 2009+ performance in Reading by skill
level against other countries
Percentage of students at each performance levels1 in PISA 2009+ Reading

Advanced

12.9

12.4

15.7

13.4

7.6

0.7

0.3

0.1

58.9

56.8

55.9

40.4

42.9

44.0

46.6

73.6
Intermediate

Below
minimum

81.3

79.3

71.8

73.0

5.8

8.3

12.5

13.6

Korea

Hong
Kong

Singapore

Japan

53.4

18.8
OECD Romania Thailand
average

Malay- Indonesia
sia

1 Advanced includes proficiency level 5 and level 6; Intermediate includes proficiency level 2, 3, and 4; and Below minimum
includes proficiency level 1 and below
SOURCE: PISA 2009+

PISA

38

PISA

PISA
PISA

PISA

PISA

PISA
a)
b)
c)

PISA

PISA
PISA

39




TIMSSPISA5excellent
greatgoodfairpoor

3-113-16

3-16TIMSS200717
456215041%62
66HPS
2416%
PISA2009+1
111527%
12180%80%
3-133-17

E-6
4

3-16

EXHIBIT 3-16
Malaysian school performance by pe
and PISA 2009+

TIMSS 2007 Participating schools by

performance bracket

Performance
bracket
Excellent

Number
0

rformance bracket for TIMSS 2007

PISA 2009+ Participating schools by

performance bracket

Percent
0%

Performance
bracket

Number

Percent

Excellent

0%

0%

Great

17

11%

Great

Good

45

30%

Good

11

7%

20

13%

121

80%

152

100%

Fair

64

43%

Fair

Poor

24

16%

Poor

150

100%

SOURCE: TIMSS 2007; PISA 2009+

PISA 2009+201010PISA
2009PISA 2009+

40

EXHIBIT 3-17

Selected profiles of High Performing Schools in Malaysia

SK Ulu
Lubai,
Sarawak

66
schools
were awarded HPS
status in recognition
of their excellence
across all aspects of
education

100% pass rate in UPSR

since 2006

First rural school in Msia

to achieve HPS status

Consistently a top
performer in UPSR

SK Zainab
(2),
Kelantan

Outstanding performance
in co-curricular activities
such as taekwondo and
public speaking.

Consistently a top
SJK(C)
Foon Yew
(2), Johor

performer in UPSR

Excellent track record in

international academic
competitions in
Mathematics and Chinese

Consistently achieved a
SM Sultan
Abdul
Hamid,
Kedah

SMK
Aminuddin
Baki, WP
Kuala
Lumpur

100% pass rate in SPM

Outstanding performance
in co-curricular activities
such as orchestra and
rugby.

100% pass rate in SPM

for five consecutive years

Excellent record in
international sporting
events, for example
swimming

High Performing Schools

is an initiative under the NKRA aimed at elevating the quality of schools
to world-class standards
. Schools awarded HPS status are granted greater operational flexibility
to innovate and continue raising the bar. These schools will also support raising standards across the
entire system by coaching other schools to improve performance.
SOURCE: Fully Residential and Excellent Schools Management Division



41.
SPM1119
3-1920%
50%
1119

41

EXHIBIT 3-19
Comparison of SPM 2011 English language grades with Cambridge
English language grades
Percentage of students obtaining each lette
assessment scales
Percent of students

r grade by international and national

SPM

60

Cambridge
Assessments

40

20

A+

A
A1

A-

B+

A2

B3

B4

C+

SPM grade

C5

C6

D7

E8

G9

Cambridge
grade

NOTE: SPM English language assessments are assessed once, but receive two grades per paper based on national and
international cut-off points respectively
SOURCE: Examination Syndicate





EXHIBIT 3-20
School completion rates for the

2000 Year 1 student cohort

Student cohort outcomes across schooling phases

Percent of total enrolment in 2000
100% = 509,329
Achieved minimum
standards

55

52

11

Switched
school system1

32

28

Failed 1 or more
core subjects2

Out of school
system3

PMR
2008

SPM
2010

65
Total size
of student
cohort

100
1
33
0.4
Year 1
2000

UPSR
2005

36% fail
to meet
min.
standard

1 Refers to students who took the national assessment as a non-public school candidate.
2 Fail refers to failing at least 1 subject, including Bahasa Malaysia, English language, History, Moral Education or Islamic
Education, Mathematics and Science (General Science for arts stream, either Physics, Chemistry or Biology for science
stream students)
3 Includes drop-outs and students who transferred to private schools not using the national curriculum (for example,
international schools)
SOURCE: Educational Policy, Planning and Research Division; Examination Syndicate

42

3-2020002010SPM
36%

36%228%
8%

3-2820111
20108%7%





1.2.

3-21
5 1. 2.
3.4.5.

43

EXHIBIT 3-21
Results of 2011 Jobstreet su

rvey on graduate employment

Top 5 reasons why fresh graduates were

rejected after interview sessions

Percent of respondents
N = 571 human resource personnel
64

Unrealistic salary demands

Bad character, attitude and
personality of the jobseeker

60

Poor command of English

language

56

Lack of good communication

skills
Too choosy about the job
or company they wish to
work for

52

On the question about

the level of quality
among our fresh
graduates today, 66% of
the respondents rated
them as average and
23% rated them as
poor.
Jobstreet 2011

38

SOURCE: Jobstreet survey (October 2011)

3-16

3
1.2.
3.

Feedback from the National Dialogue

During the National Dialogue, the Ministry consulted with almost
stakeholder groups. Malaysians from all walks of life highlighted
the importance of raising the quality of the education system.
order of frequency of citation):
Teacher quality: Teachers, parents, and students alike
spoke extensively on the need to enhance the quality
administrative burden, training, performance management,
and remuneration;
School quality:
include providing a better learning environment in terms of
infrastructure but also student discipline. Participants also
suggested enablers to achieve those improvements (e.g.,
renewed performance management, greater school-based
management; and
Student learning: Participants expressed a desire for a more
communication abilities for students.
More details on points raised during the National Dialogue can
be found in Appendix III.

44





1.
2.
3.2%

E-4



45











3-25
EXHIBIT 3-25
Comparison of National and Na
2005 to 2011

tional-type UPSR scores from

SK

UPSR scores of primary schools

Percent GPS

SJKC

2005
gap

SJKT

2011
gap

70
68

-2.5

0.3

11.7

3.5

66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
2005

06

07

08

09

10

2011

1 Gaps are calculated as the difference in percentage points between SK scores less SJK(C) or SJK(T) scores
SOURCE: Examination Syndicate





46

alienated youth





3-27

3-27
KWAPM2/37%
19%52%
PISA 2009+
10%
10%
PISA 2009+3-27

a.
b.

PISA152
6,196
PISA15
3-27

3-27

PISA 2009+

47

EXHIBIT 3-27
Distribution of student popula
band in 2011

tion receiving KWAPM by school

Distribution of student population receiving KWAPM

Percent of schools (2011)
100% = 2,296

3,858

42
31

56
75

17

25
18

7
Good schools,
Band 1&2

52

19
Average
schools,
Band 3,4,5

Schools with <1/3

students receiving
KWAPM
Schools with 1/32/3 students
receiving KWAPM
Schools with >2/3
students receiving
KWAPM

Poor schools,
Band 6&7

1 Only primary schools were included, with the exception of 1,060 schools in Sabah and 418 schools in other
states due to incomplete data
SOURCE: Finance Division; National Key Result Area; EMIS database





1.2.
3.

3-253-26
23

3-15
USD2,000.00USD3,000.00
USD1,000.00 USD2,000.00
USD0.00USD1,000.00

48

EXHIBIT 3-15

Country performance in international assessments relative to public spend

per student

Universal scale

score1 2009 (max, median, min)

580

578

Excellent

Shanghai

560
Singapore
Korea, Rep.

540

489

500

Slovak Republic

478

Russia

Armenia
Turkey

Iran
Chile

440

380
360

531
Japan

Australia
Estonia

Poland
Hungary
Latvia

Czech
Republic

Uruguay
Algeria
Philippines
W. Cape
El Savador
Jordan
Azerbaijan
Ghana
Indonesia

441

Bulgaria

France
Spain

486

Cyprus

Fair

Malta

458

Botswana

Kuwait

412
Argentina

402

397

Panama

Poor

370

340
Kyrgyzstan

320

327

0
0
1,000

Good

483

464

458

Great

422

Malaysia
Moldova

Georgia
Morocco

Ireland
Italy

Netherlands
Switzerland
Norway
Denmark
USA
Sweden
Austria
Belg. CFB
Luxembourg

Saudi
Arabia

Mauritius

Kazakhstan
Colombia
Tunisia

Oman

Belg.Flanders

Slovenia

Portugal

531

Finland

UK
Iceland

Germany

Macao
SAR, China

Israel

Serbia

Romania
Mexico

Thailand

530
Ontario
Canada

Croatia
Greece

Bahrain

455

Syria

400

Hong Kong

Lithuania

480

420

545

New Zealand

Chinese
Taipei

520

460

547

544

1,000
2,000

2,000
3,000

3000
4,000

4,000
5,000

5,000
6,000

6,000
7,000

7,000
8,000

8,000
9,000

Public spend per student

9,000
10,000
2,

10,000
+

PPP units

1 Universal scale based on Hanushek & Woessmann methodology, to enable comparison across systems.
2 Public spend per student for basic education (pre-school, primary, and secondary school levels) for 2008 current prices
Note: Malaysia 2008 public spend is USD3000
SOURCE: World Bank EdStats; IMF; UNESCO; PISA 2009+, TIMSS 2007; PIRLS 2006; Global Insight; McKinsey &
Company.

49

enrolmentschool life expectancy

3-21
1.2.

3-302000

50

EXHIBIT 3-30
Enrolment trends in National and National-type schools (2000-2011)
Percentage of ethnic Chinese primary
student enrolment by school type
Percent (2000 and 2011)

100% = 615,651
8

SK

545,253
4

Percentage of ethnic Indian primary

student enrolment by school type
Percent (2000 and 2011)

100% = 189,773

SK

49

180,752
38

6
SJK(C)

SJKT(T)

92

96

2000

2011

SJK(C)

SJK(T)

47

2000

56

2011

SOURCE: EMIS database

47%201156%3-24

Contact
Hypothesis

Allport, 1954

1234

3-21

51

MARA

3-24
200178%201181%
5%17%14%

52

JNJK201120
3-24
student interactions indicated a good level of unity
10,00020

55





56













57

(resilience)

6-3

6-11.
2.
3.

1.
2.

3.

58

Supervision
JNJK

8-10



1956
3037
a)

b)

c)

59

1956

195637



3-24
201181%



+/+,

6-8III
A-18VI
A-36

60

PISA
TIMSS

1993

a)
b)
c)



&EVDBUJPO
0NCVETNBO

(Education Delivery Unit)

8-98-10

to leave party politics behind

to be independent from other state organs
independent with regard to the objects of investigations

61

International Ombudsman Institute

International Ombudsman Association



62


201150%

5-2

5-10e-Guru

full-time specialist couches

5-10



2020
50%2-4

3-193-20
The Lost boys issue, 3-20
20052011UPSR
3-19

63

LINUS

4-14

88%3-22





a)

64

b)

c)



a)

b)

c)



65







, 2020

66

a)

137
7
-
7

2020

67

b)

LINUS

13

KSSR
5
570

68

c)

UNESCO

30%

UNESCO

69

Cummins, J.Collier, V. P.

d)

relevance

2007146
Kurikulum Asli dan Penan,
KAP

KAP

KAP
Jabatan Kemajuan Orang Asli Malaysia JAKOA2010
20092010/
140531.77%1286
29.02%116049.55%
118345.75%
70%

70

28%



a)

health education

Satu Murid Satu

Sukan

UNICEFNational Suicide
Registry

71

b)

expressive arts

c)

social studies

72

informed



1
Shift 2Ensure every child is proficient in Bahasa Malaysia and English language22016-2020
Wave 2 (2016-2020) Accelerate System Improvement
2014
2017

73

2017

a)

b)

c)

d)



a)b)
c)

1961

50




a)

b)

c)

d)

74

e)


-*/64

a)



a)

b)



a)

b)

c) pedagogical
content knowledge



a)

b)



a) 50

b)

c)

75



-*/64

LINUS 2.0LINUS
LINUSAptitude
Test
Verbal Reasoning
Math-logical ReasoningAptitude Test
IQTest


(Standard-Based Assessment)
4-1

76

4-2
4-4

6Band 1-Band 6

performance
standard



77

(essay)



PMR2008TIMSS2007
3-18
2-3

6-8

78



-*/64

LINUS
reliabilityvalidity


a)

b)

c)
d)

e)
f)
25


a)

b)

c)

d)

-1
:1.
2.3.
4.
MPM

79

(System Structure)39%




numeracy
and literacy

upper secondary







QSBDUJDVN


a)
b)
c)
d)
e)

80












a) 70%30%

b)

c) general



a)

b) /

81



a)

b)

c)

d)



PAV


a)

b)



a)
b)

82

c)
d)

PISA
TIMSS

19
6-102015

20152025

PISATIMSS
2016
75%80%2017

83

Education
Delivery Unit
(Education Ombudsman)

<>



_Cover_FA.indd 1



03/06/2013 11:48:05 AM